Bombay High Court
1.Union Of India And Another vs 1.Nilesh Kissan Pardeshi on 27 January, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
49.6358.07-wp.docx
BASAVRAJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GURAPPA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 6358 OF 2007
Digitally signed by
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA WITH
PATIL
Date: 2023.01.30 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.148 OF 2023
10:44:51 +0530
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6358 OF 2007
Union of India & Anr. ..... Petitioners
Vs.
Nilesh Kissan Pardeshi ..... Respondents
Ms. Neeta Masurkar for the Petitioners / Applicants
CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : JANUARY 27, 2023
P.C.
1. The Petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal (for short "Tribunal"). The present
Respondent had filed Original Application before the Tribunal
challenging his termination. The present Respondent was appointed
as a Washerman on 4th October 2001. Under order dated 19th August
2005 Respondent No.1 was terminated from service w.e.f. 10 th
March 2005. The Tribunal considered the action of the present
Petitioner illegal and arbitrary allowing the Original Application
directing the reinstatement with 50% back wages.
Basavraj 1/3
49.6358.07-wp.docx
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
Tribunal failed to consider that Respondent was on probation. His
probation period was extended. He remained absent. As his
performance was not satisfactory, the Petitioner was never
confirmed in service and instead the probation period was extended.
Two notices were also issued to the Respondent. The notice was of
5th July 2004 so also 16th December 2004. The performance of the
Respondent did not improve and he was also unauthorisedly absent.
All these facts were considered and during the probation period, the
Respondent was terminated. Termination during the probation
period was not stigmatic, as such the Tribunal ought not to have
interfered in the matter.
3. We have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal and also
considered the facts.
4. The Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, has observed that
after the probation was over on 5 th October 2003, the Respondent
had sought to extend the probation for terminating the services of
the Respondent w.e.f. 16th October 2005. However, the Petitioner
allowed the Respondent to join his duties and regularized the period
of absence due to sickness under order dated 4 th February 2005 by
sanctioning EL/ EOL for 58 days. The Tribunal also observed that
Basavraj 2/3
49.6358.07-wp.docx
the Petitioner could not have terminated the services of the
Respondent with retrospective effect. The order of termination was
issued on 19th August 2005 and the effect of the order was sought to
be given retrospectively from 10th March 2005. This also ought not
to have been done. It is also nowhere shown by the Petitioner that
the Respondent was gainfully employed at the relevant time. 50%
back wages has been granted. It is further accepted by the learned
Counsel for the Petitioner that after the order is passed by the
Tribunal, the Respondent is working with the Petitioner and is
discharging his duties.
5. In light of the above, the Tribunal has taken a plausible view.
The Writ Petition, as such, is dismissed. No costs.
6. Rule is discharged.
7. The Interim Application also stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Basavraj 3/3
